As the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) begins its formal deliberations on synthetic biology applications, we find ourselves in a critical window where governance frameworks around the use of synthetic biology in natural ecosystems are still being shaped.

A series of important meetings and debates at the IUCN will culminate in a vote later in the year and an official position on the use of synthetic biology applications in conservation. Whichever side of the debate you are on, a great deal is at stake.

Humans are driving biodiversity loss across all species. Land-use change, resource use, pollution, climate change and invasive species significantly alter local species diversity causing widespread shifts in community composition and declines in biodiversity across terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

Scientists estimate that species are going extinct about 1,000 times faster due to human activities than they would naturally. In response to this crisis, nature conservation aims to safeguard remaining biodiversity. Until now, conservation methods have included establishing protected areas and championing certain species. Now, however, synthetic biology tools – such as gene editing, synthetic gene drives – are being proposed to meet conservation aims.

Many of the proposed applications of synthetic biology – an advanced form of genetic engineering – remain unproven and largely experimental. Genetically engineered trees, for instance, are being considered for purposes such as boosting timber and pulp production, mitigating climate change through carbon storage and aiding in forest restoration by enhancing resistance to pests and diseases. In marine conservation, researchers are investigating ways to identify heat-tolerant gene variants in corals and introduce them into other corals to improve resilience to rising ocean temperatures. Gene drive technologies are also under development as a method for controlling or eliminating invasive species.

These projects are often framed as timely responses to ecological crises, offering high-tech solutions in an era when traditional conservation methods are seen as too slow or inadequate. Yet alongside these promises come serious concerns. Scientists involved in developing these technologies have warned that releasing engineered organisms into the wild may lead to complex and potentially irreversible ecological effects. Gene drives, in particular, are designed to propagate engineered traits rapidly through entire populations, amplifying both their intended and unintended consequences.

Beneath the surface of this technical debate lies a more profound shift. The introduction of synthetic biology into nature conservation is not simply about adding new tools to an existing toolbox. It is changing the very foundations of nature conservation itself – reshaping not only whether we intervene in nature, but why and how. In doing so, synthetic biology is reframing the purpose, ethics and language of nature conservation itself.

Are these technologies truly supporting nature conservation goals? For instance, if coral reefs are dying, shouldn’t we help them adapt? Could using RNAi to reduce the Varroa destructor mite in honey bees benefit entire ecosystems? What are the consequences of such interventions? These apparent synergies, however, mask a more profound tension – one that exposes fundamental differences in worldview, values and assumptions between the practice of nature conservation and the ethos of synthetic biology.

Two Visions of Nature

Nature conservation, at its heart, is rooted in the idea of protection. It seeks to safeguard biodiversity, respect ecological complexity and its interconnectedness. It acknowledges the limits of human understanding. It is informed by a recognition that we do not fully understand the systems we depend on and that precaution is essential when intervening in them.

Synthetic biology, on the other hand, sees nature as improvable. It is based on the idea that living systems can be rationally designed, controlled and optimised. It treats life as programmable and ecosystems as systems to be engineered. It offers powerful tools – but those tools come bundled with a worldview: one that prizes intervention, assumes control is possible and places complete trust in technological misled dominance.

These two perspectives are not easily reconciled. Nature conservation asks how we can support natural systems to thrive. Synthetic biology asks how we can redesign them to fix what humans have damaged and to eventually meet human goals.

We must not reframe nature conservation as a project of engineering but one of care, restoration and restraint.

Risks That Are More Than Technical

Much of the discussion around synthetic biology in nature conservation remains focused on technical risks – such as whether gene-edited species will behave as intended, whether they might affect non-target organisms or whether they could trigger unpredictable ecological responses. These are legitimate concerns that require rigorous assessment and the application of the precautionary principle.

There is a risk of normalising irreversible interventions in wild ecosystems – of shifting from a conservation ethos that values natural evolution to one that sees permanent genetic modification as “natural”. There is a risk of sidelining Indigenous peoples and local communities and voices who have different relationships with land, species and stewardship – and who are rarely part of high-level decisions about deploying synthetic organisms.

Beyond ecological and technical concerns, synthetic biology raises broader ethical, cultural and governance challenges that are often overlooked. There is a growing danger that synthetic biology becomes a convenient distraction from more difficult – and more political – conversations. Coral bleaching, for instance, is driven by rising ocean temperatures, which in turn are caused by fossil fuel emissions and extractive industrial economies. Engineering coral to withstand heat may provide temporary relief, but it does not confront the root causes of ocean warming.

The case of honey bees illustrates some of the broader tensions in applying synthetic biology to nature conservation. Their decline has been linked to factors such as pesticide exposure, habitat loss, disease and industrial farming practices. In response, some researchers have proposed RNA interference (RNAi) as a potential tool to enhance bee health or manage pests. While such approaches may offer promising benefits, they also raise important questions – not only about whether they might delay more systemic solutions, such as reducing pesticide use or restoring habitats, but also about their broader ecological effects. Studies have suggested that RNAi-based interventions could unintentionally affect non-target pollinators and insects, potentially disrupting beneficial species and ecological relationships.

In each of these cases, synthetic biology risks displacing more holistic, justice-oriented and ecologically grounded responses. Rather than addressing the systemic pressures driving biodiversity loss, it may end up entrenching the very systems that caused the problem – repackaged under the promise of innovation.

The Governance Gap

Despite the scale of these risks, synthetic biology is moving forward in conservation contexts with minimal regulatory oversight. International frameworks are still catching up and governance mechanisms remain voluntary, fragmented or underdeveloped. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has called for precaution and inclusive risk assessment, but national implementation varies widely and corporate interests are increasingly shaping the narrative.

The IUCN — the world’s largest conservation network – is currently in the midst of an important process. Between April and October 2025, it will hold on-line discussions, as well as consultations and member voting at the Congress in Abu Dhabi on the role of synthetic biology in nature conservation. These deliberations will set the tone for how the field moves forward – whether it approaches biotechnology with critical rigor or embraces it as the new face of nature conservation.

This moment matters. It will influence funding, research agendas and public trust. It will determine whether synthetic biology is treated as an exception or becomes the new normal.

Reframing the Question

Rather than asking whether synthetic biology can serve nature conservation goals, we should ask a more foundational question: What kind of nature conservation do we want?

Do we want a conservation rooted in the protection of wildness or the redesign of living systems? Do we want to deepen our relationships with natural processes, or replace them with engineered alternatives? Do we want to invest in long-term ecological restoration and social transformation, or look critically at the hype of technological fixes that may carry long-term consequences?

To be clear, this is not a call to abandon scientific inquiry. But the release of biotechnologies into nature – particularly in the name of conservation – is a path fraught with risks and uncertainties. Given our still-fragmentary understanding of genetics and ecosystems and the irreversible impacts such interventions could have, we believe these technologies should not be used in wild environments. Proposals to deregulate biotechnologies in the EU and UK risk opening the door to poorly understood, inadequately assessed and untraceable genetic interventions in the wild.

We need to reassert the values that made nature conservation meaningful in the first place: care, humility, protection and justice. We need to remember that the point is not to outsmart nature, but to live within its limits.

  • Joann Sy is Director of Partnerships and Research at Pollinis
  • Watch the webinar on this topic, co-organised by Save our Seeds (EU), Pollinis (FR) and A Bigger Conversation (UK)